Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
is going to blow up because george h.w. bush is going to acknowledge is going to raise taxes. you may remember this is just two years after he stood before the republican in northern since the readme that's. no new taxes. you see clint eastwood was dominating republican conventions even then, at least having a hand about the remembered moments of the convention. this was a big deal and it was a big deal because those of us in the media needed some kind of a handle on all these negotiations. we know to support these were talking in may. we need to group data that the white house was the serious people. dimensions of the problem, they were the biggest problem we had at that time, especially before we realized we were going to war in iraq. that particular summer, what we were looking out of the fiscal front was the biggest touring town. we were looking for wonky publications at congressional quarterly that no problem getting readers interested because they were the people who knew. but all the rest of the media really was the handle come in no way to get people interested at all these nu
at the amount of time, particularly in the obama administration, even more so than the george w. bush of administration, you look at senior officials who go to asia, throughout the region, and also the discussion and attempt to courtney with china. there seems to be a lot of that to try to coordinate. but again coming back to jim steinberg was the fourth member of this panel would happily and armitage and joe knight looking at the die you island dispute, and said they were shocked and surprised why the level of miscommunication, ms. assessment and dangerous of that between china and japan. so it raises them up question of whether or not, i agree. i know china wants respect to whether or not what you are seeing is a strategic game, or tactical game by china to use its potential ms. assessment to kind of look like the unstable part in some of his to basically help push out some interest. and that we've been a little bit. >> steve, i think the essential question is not of domination or respect, it's about whether it will be static of whether it will be dynamic. and there is no way that n
george h.w. bush, the first president bush, who by the way of course was a world war ii veteran, did heroic things during that war. and it also has the support of former senate majority leader bob dole, certainly a patriot. senator dole, a disabled veteran from world war ii, who led the fight to pass the treaty, was here yesterday urging republicans to support it. now, mr. president, think about that. robert dole, who was grievously injured in world war ii, spent more than two years in a hospital, he came to this senate floor, and the first speech he gave was on disabilities, and we needed to do something about it. he was here -- he led the fight to pass the treaty, urging republicans to support it. a few republicans greeted him as he was in his wheelchair here. they greeted this 89-year-old war hero, i repeat, patriot, who just last week was in walter reed hospital. then one by one, all but a handful of them voted against the treaty, ensuring its failure. but their professed reasons for opposing it had no basis in fact -- none. most republicans acknowledge that. some use an excuse,
that happened in september. the unemployment rate, while it has come down, is still higher when george w. bush extended it. .. now he has also said he is not wedded to every detail of his plan, that he will compromise and he looks forward to concrete proposal that addressed the question of revenue for sale. they are open to revenue. the fate of the raise tax rates on the wealthiest americans. it's mathematically impossible to receive targets necessary or balance in a way that only closes loopholes and tax deductions. both economically -- >> that's been your earlier point. >> depending on the proposal you're talking about. it is either possible to do it if you stick it to them about class and race taxes on the middle class you can tax the wealthiest americans from having to contribute more, or you do it in a way that would go after things like charitable deduction for the home mortgage plan in a way that is not either economically sounder political feasible on capitol hill. so we hope for a specificity from republicans. if they need something different, if their ideas are different from ours, w
. in 2001, president george w. bush decided to spend a large portion of the surpluses he inherited from president clinton to cut tax rates. many democrats opposed him then because the tax cuts were unfair, favoring the highest-income americans. to overcome that obstacle, the republicans resorted to a parliamentary technique, budget reconciliation, a maneuver that allowed for passage of their tax cuts but forced them to expire after 2010, at the end of the ten-year budget window. so we scroll forward to 2010. as 2010 ended, president obama and many democrats in congress, including myself, wanted to extend the tax cuts for middle-class families but let rates on income above $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a family revert to the clinton era levels. our senate republican friends filibustered that effort, refusing to allow the middle-class tax cut without a tax cut for the highest incomes as well. their hostage strategy worked that time and the president and senate democrats reluctantly agreed to extend the tax cuts for two more years. so now the two years is up and these tax rat
support it? because george h.w. bush started this process and president george w. bush signed the treaty to participate in it. and because in the end, this treaty and our participation in it -- and this is the most important -- can improve the quality of life for people with disabilities. because to join it is to keep faith with the men and women who have suffered grievous disability in defense of our nation, and we owe them nothing less. this treaty is not about changing america. it's about america changing the world. but a vote here is a test of this institution. this vote is a test of whether the senate, which passed the civil rights act and the voting rights act and the americans with disabilities act, is still capable of voting to change things, let alone send a message that could change the world. i ask colleagues to do for the world what they've done for america -- walk down the aisle here and for millions everywhere who cannot walk make a stateme statement. raise your voice and vote for millions who are voiceless in their own lands. stand up for those who cannot stand up for them
of the deficits, really. look what happened under george w. bush. he inherited surpluses, turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see with huge tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires, huge. the very tax cuts our friends are defending right now. he did two wars on a credit card and we wound up in a mess. so we have to come together with the best ideas that we have, and i know we can reach agreement, but let us do the first step which is to take care of 98% of the people. the republicans want to have tax breaks for 100% of the people. we're saying can you take 98%? if i stopped you on the street and said i'm willing to give you 98% of what you say you want and you walk away from me and you attack me and you say i'm not ready to do anything, i honestly think people would scratch their head. so i think it is clear, the senate passed a bill to renew the tax breaks for 98% of the people. we are saying up to $250,000 in income, you go right back to those bush tax cut rates. but over 250, you go to the clinton rates. pay a little bit more so we can attack this deficit, so we can make the inv
allowed votes on 20 of president george w. bush's judicial nominees, including three circuit court nominees in the lame duck session after the election in 2002. i remember i was the chairman of the judiciary committee. i moved forward on those votes, including one very controversial circuit court nominee. the senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006. actually, in 2006, we confirmed another circuit court nominee. we proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the election of 2010, including five circuit court nominees. the reason i'm not listing confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we proceeded to confirm the last ten judicial nominees approved by the judiciary committee in september and long before the lame duck session. so that's our history. that's our recent precedent. those across the aisle who contend that judicial confirmation votes during lame duck sessions, those who say those don't take place, they're wrong. the facts are facts are facts. so
in 1990 were facing automatic budget short cuts and large projected deficits. president george h. w. bush in the breaking his taxes pledge in order to get a deal with house and senate democrats. as amihai and paul pos mur the director of the administration program at george mason university and i want to welcome you to the session which we are calling looking back to move forward the 1990 budget summit revisited co-sponsored by george mason university and the bipartisan policy center. it's our pleasure to put this on and recognize with all the frenzy about the fiscal cliff that we have a history and some of that history is successful in resolving the deep seated choices within the budgeting. that is what we are going to look back and talk about today and see whether we can learn any lessons from that experience. we will go over the detailed program and a few minutes but i want first to introduce our keynote speaker tom davis many of you know and most of you know tom. thomas somebody i call a academic. he's covered many bases and was the county executive for fairfax county. he was the repr
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9